Electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes versus endoscopic placement: a randomized, multicenter trial

Blind versus endoscopy-guided postpyloric feeding tube placement in adults with ischemic stroke: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the one-time success rate of blind and endoscopy-guided postpyloric feeding tube placement after implementing a comprehensive nursing scheme of intestinal blind placement for patients with ischemic stroke.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 179 patients with blind bedside placement and 118 with endoscopy-guided placement. The primary outcome was the one-time success rate of radiologically confirmed postpyloric placement. The secondary endpoints included the position of the tube tip, length of insertion, time of placement, and expenses. The safety endpoints were the incidence of complications caused by placement.

RESULTS

The results showed that the method of tube placement did not significantly affect the outcome of the first tube placement (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.137-1.207; P = 0.105). Compared with endoscopy-guided placement, blind placement was half the cost. We also found that a history of abdominal surgery (OR = 0.003; 95% CI  = 0.000-0.059; P < 0.001) and longer intensive care unit (ICU) days (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.903-0.981; P = 0.004) were inversely associated with the one-time success rate.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that blind intestinal feeding tube placement has an equivalent one-time success rate compared with endoscopy-guided placement in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke if operators can be trained well. However, the expenses of endoscopy-guided placement were twice those of blind bedside methods. We also found that patients with abdominal surgery history and longer ICU stay were more likely to fail at the first placement. Further research is needed to replicate our single-center observations in a larger population of patients.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

BACKGROUND

For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine.  Endoscopic-guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic-guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic-guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic-guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic-guided placement with endoscopic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series or case reports.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials.  Electromagnetic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic-guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic-guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence).  Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.47 to 8.59; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD -127.69 US dollars, 95% CI -135.71 to -119.67; moderate-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic-guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic-guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well-defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures.

Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube. Methods  Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I ² ). Results  Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61]; I ²  = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: -127.77 ($) [-135.8-119.73]; I ²  = 0 %). Conclusions  Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.

A Two-Stage Bedside Intubation Method to Improve Success Rate of Post-pyloric Placement of Spiral Nasoenteric Tubes in Critically Ill Patients: A Multi-Center, Prospective Study

Backgrounds

Prokinetic agents could improve the success rate of post-pyloric placement of self-propelled spiral nasoenteric tubes (NETs), and bedside blind technique might apply as a rescue therapy subsequent to spontaneous transpyloric migration failure. The objective of this study was to investigated the validity and safety of these two bedside intubation methods as a sequential procedure for post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs in critically ill patients.

Methods

The multicenter, prospective study was conducted in intensive care units of four tertiary hospitals (June 2020 to January 2021). Eligible patients received self-propelled spiral NET placements, promoted by prokinetic agents (Stage 1). An abdominal X-ray performed 24 h post-intubation confirmed the position of the tube tip. Patients with a failed transpyloric migration entered Stage 2, where beside blind intubation was conducted (reconfirmed by X-ray). The primary end point was the overall success rate of post-pyloric placement.

Results

The overall success rate of post-pyloric placement of the spiral NET was 91.1% (73.4% in the third portion of the duodenum [D3] or beyond). The total adverse event rate was 21.0%, without any serious adverse events. In Stage 1, 55.6% of participants achieved transpyloric migration, of these, 44.4% migrated to D3 or beyond. The median time from decision to intubate to the initiation of enteral nutrition (EN) was 25 h. In Stage 2, 83.0% of patients had successful post-pyloric intubation (67.9% in D3 or beyond). The median time from decision to EN initiation after the two-stage process was 36 h.

Conclusions

Prokinetic agents-assisted self-propelled intubation and remedial bedside blind technique as a sequential procedure for post-pyloric placement of spiral NETs were effective and safe, and this two-stage process did not affect the implementation of early EN in critically ill patients.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900026381. Registered on 6 October 2019.

Video-assisted placement of enteral feeding tubes using the Integrated Real-Time Imaging System (IRIS)-technology in critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION

In critically ill patients, nasogastric (NG) and nasojejunal (NJ) feeding tube placements are standard procedures. However, about 1.9% of blind tube insertions are malpositioned in the tracheopulmonary system, whereas guided procedures may result in a significant delay in nutritional delivery. Guided methods, such as Cortrak and fluoroscopy, have success rates of 82.6-85% and 93% respectively. The current study aims to investigate the performance of video-assisted feeding tube placement in the post-pyloric position using Integrated Real Time Imaging System (IRIS-) technology.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study in patients requiring enteral feeding was conducted in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcome was the post-pyloric placement of IRIS feeding tubes, as confirmed by X-ray. Secondary study objectives included gastric placement, ease of use and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-one feeding tubes were placed using IRIS-technology; one patient was excluded for analysis due to protocol violation. One procedure was terminated due to significant bleeding (epistaxis) and desaturation. Only eighteen (58%) feeding tubes were placed in post-pyloric position (including two past the ligament of Treitz). In subjects who needed post-pyloric placement due gastroparesis, IRIS was mostly unsuccessful (success rate of 25%). However, when gastric placement was the primary objective, 96.8% of tubes were correctly placed. During insertion, tracheal visualization occurred in 27% of cases, and the IRIS feeding tube was repositioned early in the procedure without causing patient harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time video-assisted post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill ICU patients was only successful in 58% of cases and therefore currently cannot be recommended for this indication. However, a high success rate (96.8%) for gastric placement was achieved. IRIS tube placement detected tracheal misplacement immediately and had few adverse events.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement is limited. We plan to provide a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials evaluating EM-guided versus endoscopic placement will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from database inception to 30 September 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are complications. Secondary outcomes include procedure success rate, total procedure time, patient recommendation, length of hospital stay and mortality. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data will be combined with a random effects model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots. We will quantify the effect of potential effect modifiers by meta-regression if appropriate. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020172427.

Electromagnetic-guided versus endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Current evidence supporting the utility of electromagnetic (EM)-guided method as the preferred technique for post-pyloric feeding tube placement is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EM-guided versus endoscopic placement.

Methods

We searched several databases for all randomised controlled trials evaluating the EM-guided vs. endoscopic placement of post-pyloric feeding tubes up to 28 July 2020. Primary outcome was procedure success rate. Secondary outcomes included reinsertion rate, number of attempts, placement-related complications, tube-related complications, insertion time, total procedure time, patient discomfort, recommendation scores, length of hospital stay, mortality, and total costs.

Results

Four trials involving 536 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference between the two groups in procedure success rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.91–1.03), reinsertion rate (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.59–1.20), number of attempts (WMD − 0.23; 95% CI − 0.99–0.53), placement-related complications (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.41–1.49), tube-related complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82–1.44), total procedure time (WMD − 18.09 min; 95% CI − 38.66–2.47), length of hospital stay (WMD 1.57 days; 95% CI − 0.33–3.47), ICU mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50–1.29), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59–1.28), and total costs (SMD − 1.80; 95% CI − 3.96–0.36). The EM group was associated with longer insertion time (WMD 4.3 min; 95% CI 0.2–8.39), higher patient discomfort level (WMD 1.28; 95% CI 0.46–2.1), and higher recommendation scores (WMD 1.67; 95% CI 0.24–3.10).

Conclusions

No significant difference was found between the two groups in efficacy, safety, and costs. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42020172427)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-020-00506-8.

Evaluation of a Nasoenteral Feeding Tube With Balloon to Facilitate Placement

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding is essential for critically ill, head trauma, and burn patients who are unable to swallow.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new nasoenteral feeding tube with distal tip balloon designed to facilitate post-pyloric migration and avoid misplacement in the trachea.

METHODS

A case series was conducted in 50 critically ill patients aged 19 to 89 years receiving mechanical ventilation and requiring enteral nutrition in a teaching hospital. Patients received a soft, flexible, kink-resistant nasoenteral feeding tube with a balloon near the distal tip to enhance postpyloric migration by peristalsis. The feeding tube was inserted with a novel thread technique to reduce posterior nasopharyngeal trauma and tube misplacement. Pulse oximetry provided early detection of misplacement into the trachea. Placement was verified by abdominal radiography performed shortly after the procedure and repeated within 24 hours if needed.

RESULTS

Postpyloric placement was achieved at 30 minutes in 24% of patients and by the following morning in 70% of patients. Tracheal intubation occurred in 1 patient but was recognized and corrected without injury. No tube occlusion from kinking occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Early gastric or postpyloric feeding can be provided with this novel feeding tube. Its use facilitates quick bedside recognition of accidental misplacement in the trachea, reducing the chance of pneumothorax. The tip balloon reduces deeper placement into a lung and promotes distal migration into the small intestine. The design prevents occlusion from kinking, which is common with conventional feeding tubes. Nurses easily adopted the tube and insertion technique.

Pneumothoraces Prevented With Use of Electromagnetic Device to Place Feeding Tubes

BACKGROUND

A US Food and Drug Administration safety letter warned about the risk for pneumothoraces during feeding tube insertion despite the use of electromagnetic placement devices that provide real-time visualization of feeding tube position.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess pulmonary placement and pneumothoraces in CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertions.

METHODS

CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion. Thirty-two studies documenting pulmonary placement and/or complications of feeding tube insertion were found.

RESULTS

Operators recognized pulmonary placement on insertion tracings during 202 CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion procedures, resulting in the immediate withdrawal of 199 feeding tubes. One pneumothorax was identified later by radiography. Seven pulmonary placements were not recognized by CORTRAK operators at the time of feeding tube insertion, resulting in 2 pneumothoraces. The incidence of pneumothorax for CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertions was 0.02% (3 of 17039). Of the feeding tubes inserted into the pulmonary system - either found during or after the procedure -1.4% (3 of 209) resulted in pneumothoraces (as opposed to the 19% to 28% incidence of pneumothorax for blind feeding tube insertions. Operators recognizing pulmonary placement on CORTRAK insertion tracings may have prevented 97% (202 of 209) of feeding tubes from being inserted farther into the respiratory tract.

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding tube insertion with an electromagnetic placement device is advantageous over blind feeding tube insertion because the operator can recognize pulmonary placement early and withdraw the feeding tube, thus decreasing the risk of pulmonary complications.

Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES

Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE.

RESULTS

After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).